5 ms·

My friend just had a kid. He works in a grocery store, and doesn't make much. They gave him 1 week of paternity leave, and he had 2 weeks of vacation saved up.

My friend just had a kid. He works in a grocery store, and doesn't make much. They gave him 1 week of paternity leave, and he had 2 weeks of vacation saved up. I'm doing as much as I can to help, but it's a shitty situation. EDIT: His wife quit her job so she can be with the baby. Technically my friend's salary should cover everything they need, but if there are any complications, well, they'll be bankrupt in an instant. Thankfully they've got a good safety net (lots of good friends).

jdminhbg 16y ago
Another shitty situation would be if all of your friends' coworkers had to work more and earn less to pay for your friend's decision to have a kid.
- ramidarigaz 16y ago
  They didn't decide to. Apparently it was an accident. You do have a point though. I hope nothing happens, considering I don't make that much money.
  - gcheong 16y ago
    Assuming you live in a country that has such things, please explain to me how, with easy access to birth control, morning after pills, abortion, and adoption options, is having a kid ever "an accident"? They may not have decided to get pregnant but it was no accident that they decided to keep the child.
    - ramidarigaz 16y ago
      I think I know why things happened the way they did, but I can't in good conscience post them here.
    - dgabriel 16y ago
      Birth control is not 100% effective, and it often used incorrectly (though not on purpose). Once a woman is pregnant, she may not know for more than a month, at which point an abortion or adoption is an extremely difficult decision. In any case, accidents happen, yes.
      - gcheong 16y ago
        I did not say it was 100% effective (which is exactly what I meant when I said they may not have decided to become pregnant), but it is usually the first line of protection against an unwanted pregnancy. "an abortion or adoption is an extremely difficult decision." The decision, however difficult, is still a decision which is precisely my point.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Why? Every single one of those coworkers was born at some point. So they benefited from their parents coworkers getting some time off. And almost all of them will themselves eventually benefit when they decide to have a kid....
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    It's irrelevant that there are benefits from paid time off. What is relevant is whether the benefits exceed the costs. Most people with the freedom to choose believe the benefits of time off do not exceed the costs.
    - thomas11 16y ago
      Your last statement is most likely not true for Europe. So in the end it comes down to cultural preference. If the majority prefers a certain way of doing things, it makes sense to back it up with legislation to harmonize it and make it safe for the individual (in this case, for instance, guaranteeing you to get your old job back after maternity leave).
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        The article explicitly notes that when Swedes were free to choose, they did not choose paternity leave.
        m_eiman 16y ago
        We're free to not take paternity leave, if we choose. Maybe most people here enjoy spending time with their children more than they'd enjoy earning 100% instead of ~80% of their normal pay.
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        You are free not to receive the benefits. You are not free to avoid most of the costs. For anyone who values the benefits at less than the full costs, this policy is harmful.
- whyleyc 16y ago
  Depends on your attitude to individualism I guess. A society where you trample all over each other for monetary gain at the expense of everything else is not one that personally appeals to me.
  - gcheong 16y ago
    It's not an either-or proposition.
- davidw 16y ago
  The reason debates like these are tiresome is that we all have different opinions on what "society" should pay for, and what the individual should pay for. There are very legitimate reasons to have differing points of view, so it's not like there is An Answer out there. So things go around and around and around. Even in the US, the coworkers will have to pay for things like public schools and things of that ilk. Less direct, perhaps, but still part of their taxes.
  - silverlake 16y ago
    Agreed. But I have some sympathy for the Republican complaint that the poor can tax the rich to pay for "social goods" that mostly go to the poor. If it were a truly equitable tax on everyone for social goods then it would easier to swallow.
patrickgzill 16y ago
Assuming you are talking about a place in the USA, are you sure that there is not a state "CHIP" program that he can enroll in at little to no charge? http://www.cms.gov/home/chip.asp http://www.cms.gov/home/chip.asp Or did you mean complications other than health issues?
- ramidarigaz 16y ago
  I didn't know about that. I'll shoot him the link. Thanks.

jdminhbg 16y ago

Another shitty situation would be if all of your friends' coworkers had to work more and earn less to pay for your friend's decision to have a kid.

ramidarigaz 16y ago
They didn't decide to. Apparently it was an accident. You do have a point though. I hope nothing happens, considering I don't make that much money.
- gcheong 16y ago
  Assuming you live in a country that has such things, please explain to me how, with easy access to birth control, morning after pills, abortion, and adoption options, is having a kid ever "an accident"? They may not have decided to get pregnant but it was no accident that they decided to keep the child.
  - ramidarigaz 16y ago
    I think I know why things happened the way they did, but I can't in good conscience post them here.
  - dgabriel 16y ago
    Birth control is not 100% effective, and it often used incorrectly (though not on purpose). Once a woman is pregnant, she may not know for more than a month, at which point an abortion or adoption is an extremely difficult decision. In any case, accidents happen, yes.
    - gcheong 16y ago
      I did not say it was 100% effective (which is exactly what I meant when I said they may not have decided to become pregnant), but it is usually the first line of protection against an unwanted pregnancy. "an abortion or adoption is an extremely difficult decision." The decision, however difficult, is still a decision which is precisely my point.
MichaelSalib 16y ago
Why? Every single one of those coworkers was born at some point. So they benefited from their parents coworkers getting some time off. And almost all of them will themselves eventually benefit when they decide to have a kid....
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  It's irrelevant that there are benefits from paid time off. What is relevant is whether the benefits exceed the costs. Most people with the freedom to choose believe the benefits of time off do not exceed the costs.
  - thomas11 16y ago
    Your last statement is most likely not true for Europe. So in the end it comes down to cultural preference. If the majority prefers a certain way of doing things, it makes sense to back it up with legislation to harmonize it and make it safe for the individual (in this case, for instance, guaranteeing you to get your old job back after maternity leave).
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      The article explicitly notes that when Swedes were free to choose, they did not choose paternity leave.
      - m_eiman 16y ago
        We're free to not take paternity leave, if we choose. Maybe most people here enjoy spending time with their children more than they'd enjoy earning 100% instead of ~80% of their normal pay.
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        You are free not to receive the benefits. You are not free to avoid most of the costs. For anyone who values the benefits at less than the full costs, this policy is harmful.
whyleyc 16y ago
Depends on your attitude to individualism I guess. A society where you trample all over each other for monetary gain at the expense of everything else is not one that personally appeals to me.
- gcheong 16y ago
  It's not an either-or proposition.
davidw 16y ago
The reason debates like these are tiresome is that we all have different opinions on what "society" should pay for, and what the individual should pay for. There are very legitimate reasons to have differing points of view, so it's not like there is An Answer out there. So things go around and around and around. Even in the US, the coworkers will have to pay for things like public schools and things of that ilk. Less direct, perhaps, but still part of their taxes.
- silverlake 16y ago
  Agreed. But I have some sympathy for the Republican complaint that the poor can tax the rich to pay for "social goods" that mostly go to the poor. If it were a truly equitable tax on everyone for social goods then it would easier to swallow.

patrickgzill 16y ago

Assuming you are talking about a place in the USA, are you sure that there is not a state "CHIP" program that he can enroll in at little to no charge? http://www.cms.gov/home/chip.asp http://www.cms.gov/home/chip.asp Or did you mean complications other than health issues?

ramidarigaz 16y ago
I didn't know about that. I'll shoot him the link. Thanks.